Skógræktarritið - 15.05.2001, Qupperneq 96

Fig. 5. Plantation with Picea sitcfiensis at
Kergord, Central Mainland.
On the peaty hill land, the
replacement of heather by shal-
lower rooting grasses which are
intensively grazed, causes soil
instability. In winter such ground
becomes literally a bog or a
swamp. Fertilisers are quickly
leached away. Overgrazing on hill
land may also have contributed
to several recent landslides.
As far as woodlands are con-
cerned, the 20th century might
justifiably be termed "the era of
sitka spruce" in Shetland. The
islands’ largest grouping of trees
(4.5 ha of shelterbelts), at Kergord
in the central mainland, has a
high proportion of this species,
planted between about 1910 and
1985 (Fig 5). The highest of these
trees average 16 metres, while the
"champion" tree of Shetland is a
Kergord sitka spruce of 19 metres
height, with a girth at breast
height of 1.9 metres. Kergord also
has a fine collection of broad-
leaved and other coniferous trees,
including an impressive Araucaria
auracana.
Later, post Second World War
plantations in Shetland were
government subsidised experi-
mental shelterbelts; nearly all
were coniferous, with lodgepole
and mountain pine nursing sitka
spruce, according to classic
Forestry Commission models.
All, however, lacked continuity of
management. There was no thin-
ning regime, and no advice given
to anyone by anybody on how to
deal with a mature, narrow (e.g.
30 metres wide) coniferous shel-
terbelt. Consequently, progres-
sive windblow has become a
major problem in these spruce
dominated plantations- which
rather defeats their purpose as
shelterbelts.
in Kergord, however, lapanese
larch was used as an outer
"defence” to several of the shel-
terbelts. This species, although
not providing the vertical "wall"
to prevailing winds that sitka
spruce can, has proved much
more wind firm, at least on rela-
tively mineral soils. All the plan-
tations at Kergord, however, fell
into neglect in the latter part of
the 20th century- with sheep
gaining entry and destroying a
substantial under storey of
shrubs- until 1985, when
Shetland Amenity Trust took
over the management of these
and several other mature planta-
tions.
The future
There are some small signs that
there will be a change to land
use dominated by over-produc-
tion of sheep. First and foremost.
the bottom has, not surprisingly,
dropped out of the market, with
over-production throughout the
EC being aided by lack of con-
sumer confidence in meat prod-
ucts. However, subsidies remain
at present based on quota num-
bers, which do not necessarily
relate to land areas occupied by
sheep. Little alternative has yet
been offered by government
agencies apart from "set-aside”
schemes for arable land- which
have little relevance to Shetland-
and conservation schemes which
do little more than "mothball"
farms and crofts. Meanwhile, the
local government's Development
Department still hands out lime
and fertiliser grants to keep re-
seeded hill land "productive".
Secondlu. there is a younger gen-
eration of crofters (with some
older and wiser ones too), who
have an increasing "environmen-
tal awareness". It should be stat-
ed at this point that crofting, for
the majority of those Shetlanders
who engage in it, is not their pri-
mary occupation. The subsidies
exist primarily to prevent rural
areas from being de-populated.
That is laudable, but if those sub-
sidies help to destroy the land
that is the basic sustenance of
the rural areas, what is the point?
Thirdlu. there is, for want of a
better phrase, "the conservation
movement" which comprises sev-
eral organisations including the
government agency Scottish
Natural Heritage (SNH) and indi-
viduals. Unfortunately there is
often conflict between SNH and
crofters (and fishermen) who
regard it as a dogmatic and unac-
countable organisation set on
depriving Shetlanders of their
"traditional" livelihoods.
94
SKÓGRÆKTARRITIÐ 2001 l.tbl.